CNN said it could be a large number of unemployment benefits are ending and the workforce is shrinking due to early retirement...thoughts?

It's probably safe to assume many people are retiring earlier than they wanted, considering that those who are in their early 60s are the first chunk of Baby Boomers, it would make sense that the numbers are large. Participation rate dropped by .2% I believe, which is not encouraging at all.

Isn't this problem solved by expanding social security taxable income, or telling the Boomers in congress to stop paying themselves more money in retirement?

no doubt that would solve some of the problem...higher taxation would probably force some back into the workforce to make up for the take home shortfall....and then since the "retiree" made more money you could pull in even more revenue due to the higher tax rate...

I pay a lot into my 401k, I expect others to do the same, and if you choose to retire early, don't look to me to help bridge the gap between retirement and social security.

You'd be much better off buying PM's. I pay into my 401k just enough to get the max match dollars from my company. At one time i was paying in 25%, but since June of 2011 i dropped it to 7% and my company matches 3%. I have been taking that money, and becoming very good friends with these people. http://jcsgold.com/ Very honest company. Just my 2 cents.

You'd be much better off buying PM's. I pay into my 401k just enough to get the max match dollars from my company. At one time i was paying in 25%, but since June of 2011 i dropped it to 7% and my company matches 3%. I have been taking that money, and becoming very good friends with these people. http://jcsgold.com/ Very honest company. Just my 2 cents.

You are putting two thirds of your savings into gold or precious metals? You are taking far too much risk with this type diversification...

73% OF NEW JOBS CREATED IN LAST 5 MONTHS ARE IN GOVERNMENT
DECEMBER 7, 2012

With the official bogus unemployment number now at 7.7%, CNSNews has discovered that a full 73% of the new jobs created over the past 5 months are government jobs. This means that rather than benefiting the economy, nearly all the jobs supposedly created over the 2nd half of 2012 are in fact draining the REAL productive economy further.
QE to Infinity…AND BEYOND!!!

(CNSNews.com) – Seventy-three percent of the new civilian jobs created in the United States over the last five months are in government, according to official data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the BLS, including 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments.

By November, according to data BLS released today, the total number of people employed had climbed to 143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June.

In the same five-month period since June, the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs created in the last five months equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall.

I wouldn't touch your portfolio with a ten foot pole...you are taking on extreme risk and could get decimated if your projections are wrong,,,good luck to ya...

That's the biggest issue but, of course, far too many investors never consider the possibility of downside (or never consider that possibility actually becoming reality). The focus is always on the upside. That is why so many get burned.

You always worry about that sort of shit as it can bleed into a lot of things. My dad, before he passes, as he said, saw Obama coming and put his stuff in pretty safe places so when my mom got it she would be okay. Hopefully he saw everything that was coming.

You always worry about that sort of shit as it can bleed into a lot of things. My dad, before he passes, as he said, saw Obama coming and put his stuff in pretty safe places so when my mom got it she would be okay. Hopefully he saw everything that was coming.

If by "safe places" you mean cash, CDs and the like, then that's been a big-time mistake in hindsight. Not entirely clear that's what you're saying, though.

If by "safe places" you mean cash, CDs and the like, then that's been a big-time mistake in hindsight. Not entirely clear that's what you're saying, though.

Not sure exactly. I've never really discussed where it all is with her(I don't want her to think I'm too interested in it). I know it's not in cash. Dad was never that way. She says it's all hanging in there.

I wouldn't touch your portfolio with a ten foot pole...you are taking on extreme risk and could get decimated if your projections are wrong,,,good luck to ya...

Not the car company, man. Fiat. Cash. FRN. Ok, would you rather have a dollar bill, or a Silver dollar coin? Both have the same denomination. I'd rather exchange my 30.00 fiat for one Morgan, or one Peace dollar.

For my cash account I would rather have the dollar since it only costs a dollar, has little or no short term risk, and can be used immediately, ...but I use my cash as my emergency fund which appears to be far different from your usage...

Nearly any financial planner will recommend 10-20% in precious metals...you have far exceeded that recommended level and you may make damn good money or you may get your ass handed to you...you have taken on a lot of risk in a sector that is at extremely high levels...

One year ago gold was at 1710 per oz...today it is at 1704 per oz

One year ago the S&P was at 1255...today it is at 1418

One year ago the Nasdaq was at 2647...today it is at 2978

Over the last year my far less volatile portfolio has outperformed your very risky allocation by a significant amount...

For my cash account I would rather have the dollar since it only costs a dollar, has little or no short term risk, and can be used immediately, ...but I use my cash as my emergency fund which appears to be far different from your usage...

Nearly any financial planner will recommend 10-20% in precious metals...you have far exceeded that recommended level and you may make damn good money or you may get your ass handed to you...you have taken on a lot of risk in a sector that is at extremely high levels...

One year ago gold was at 1710 per oz...today it is at 1704 per oz

One year ago the S&P was at 1255...today it is at 1418

One year ago the Nasdaq was at 2647...today it is at 2978

Over the last year my far less volatile portfolio has outperformed your very risky allocation by a significant amount...

If a person bought a house twenty years ago then they need to look at how their asset performed over the course of that period as opposed to just in the past year. Secondly, when gold is purchased it doesn't necessarily have to be purchased in dollar terms. If you purchased it in the proper currency it has gone up rather well during the time you referenced.

If a person bought a house twenty years ago then they need to look at how their asset performed over the course of that period as opposed to just in the past year. Secondly, when gold is purchased it doesn't necessarily have to be purchased in dollar terms. If you purchased it in the proper currency it has gone up rather well during the time you referenced.

I understand...I have no idea how long he has been in precious metals or if he purchases on a monthly basis...my point is only that putting a majority of your money in one risky asset class you take on significantly more risk and still not meet returns from a properly allocated portfolio...

Of course he may make a killing but then again he could lose 50% over a short period of time and if someone tries to time the market to avoid a downturn they add even more risk of lower returns...